SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(P&H) 1569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
Parampreet Singh – Petitioner 
Versus
Harkamal Singh – Respondent 
CR-7120-2025 (O&M), CR-7125-2025 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate

Judicial authority must follow mandatory procedures in executing arrest, including notice and inquiries into the judgment-debtor's means of payment.

Headnote:The revision petition challenges orders dated 18.03.2025 and 09.09.2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court establishes that the executing court failed to comply with the procedural requirements outlined in Sections 51 to 55 CPC and Order 21 Rules 37 to 40 CPC regarding the arrest of judgment-debtors. Key issues include the framework needed for lawful detention, with the court reaffirming the necessity of conducting inquiries. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The revision petitions are therefore partly allowed as stated above.

Table of Content
1. execution procedure review (Para 1 , 3)

JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 18.03.2025 and 09.09.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court, Ludhiana. Vide order dated 18.03.2025, the Executing Court allowed the applications filed by the decree- holder under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC read with Sections 51 and 55 CPC and under Order 21 Rule 39 CPC , directing the decree-holder to deposit subsistence allowance and issuing conditional warrants of arrest against the judgment-debtor. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.09.2025, the Executing Court dismissed the review petition filed by the judgment-debtor against the earlier order.

2. The brief facts are that a money decree in the sum of Rs.2,36,000 was passed ex parte on 19.10.2015 against the present petitioner. The decree-holder filed an execution petition for realization of the decretal amount. During the pendency of the execution, the decree-holder moved two applications: one under Section 51 read with Section 55 and Order 21 Rule 37CPC seeking arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison, and the second under Order 21 Rule 39 CPC for issuance of conditional warrants after deposit of subsistence allowance. Copies were supplied to the judgment-debtor and time was granted for reply. On the adjourned date, instead of filing reply on merits, learned counsel for the judgment-debtor raised an objection to the maintainability of the applications on the ground that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was pending. The Executing Court, by order dated 18.03.2025, dismissed the objection, noted that the application under Order IX Rule 13 had already been dismissed, and allowed the decree-holder’s applications, directing deposit of subsistence allowance and issuance of conditional warrants.

3. The judgment-debtor thereafter moved a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC contending that the order dated 18.03.2025 was in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 51 CPC and Order 21 Rule 37 CPC , inasmuch as no show cause notice was issued to the judgment-debtor and no enquiry was conducted into his means to pay before ordering arrest and detention. The executing court, however, dismissed the review petition on 09.09.2025, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of record, as the judgment-debtor was aware of the applications filed by the decree-holder, and that he had failed to plead or prove inability to pay.

4. No notice is required to be issued, matter being self-explanatory.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 suffers from serious infirmities. The scheme of execution by arrest and detention of a judgment-debtor is contained in Section s 51 to 55 CPC and Order 21 Rules 37 to 40 CPC . Section 51 CPC permits execution by arrest and detention in civil prison, but its proviso makes it clear that no such detention can be ordered unless the court is satisfied, and records reasons in writing, that the judgment- debtor has or has had since the decree means to pay and has refused or neglected to pay, or that he is dishonestly transferring or concealing property, or has acted with mala fide intent to obstruct execution. Order 21 Rule 37 further mandates that before ordering arrest, the court shall issue a notice calling upon the judgment- debtor to show cause why he should not be committed to civil prison. Only in exceptional cases, where the court is satisfied that the judgment-debtor is likely to abscond, can a warrant be issued directly without such notice. Rule 40 CPC further obliges the court to hold an enquiry upon the appearance of the judgment-debtor and to record reasons before making an order of detention.

6. In the present case, the Executing Court, while allowing the applications on 18.03.2025, nei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top